If you look at the passengers in an airplane, you will have old people, young people, babies, rich, old, and so forth.

If you look at airplane crashes, you often have survivors, and some get away nearly unscathed.

This has to do with individual karmic workings that we can't analyse.Unsubstantiated claim #1.

A Supreme Buddha could view them, though.Unsubstantiated assumption.

So, that said, each person that died in a plane crash had it in their kamma, and that it is a death with others also has to do with their individual kamma, but we can't really tell why they die together.Unsubstantiated claim #2.

I propose an intermission here for educational purposes only.

Warning: Those who cannot confront the truth need not read any further! To paraphrase a famous Jack Nicholson line from the film A Few Good Men: "If you can't handle the truth, you don't need to be reading this."

The preceding unsubstantiated claims (quoted above) are an example of wrong view.

Sometimes the most expedient and best way to correct wrong thinking is to directly confront the person with their wrong thought and slap them (figuratively speaking, that is) upside the head and ask them: "What in hell were you thinking when you bought into this wrong view?" Admittedly, this could be viewed as being a Zen method of teaching, but sometimes I like to change things up a bit in order to shake things up in the hope of a satori moment for the listener.

By asking the person to examine their own thought processes, you are (to use a tennis analogy) putting the ball back into their court and challenging them to make sense of the origin of their thought. Once they are able too correctly discern that origin, they may perhaps see the error of their thinking, and exclaim: "Yes. What was I thinking. Thank you for waking me up!"

The propounder of the wrong views quoted above is asking the reader to "believe" (meaning without any substantiation) that somehow, a person's "bad karma" is responsible for the fact of their misfortune in physical events. In other words, that their "good" or "bad" karma is responsible for whether the person "gets away unscathed" or not. It does not take into consideration that the person might have been in the right place at the wrong time, or the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply, that one must suspend all rational thought and buy into the wrong view that "your karma" is responsible for whether a completely haphazard event results in a good outcome or a bad outcome in any given circumstance. Such thinking, even on its surface, is completely irrational. It is therefore wrong view.

The speaker further compounds her error in wrong view by making a feeble attempt at providing authority for her previous wrong view: "A Supreme Buddha could view them, though." How would she KNOW that this may be true if she has never met and conversed with a Buddha herself? Now, granted, I am assuming that she has never met with or conversed with a Buddha; however, since there are no proclaimed Buddhas extant in the world today, it is not an irrational assumption. It is, however, a fact that is inescapably true.

To proclaim that "each person that died in a plane crash had it in their kamma" is to propose that the outcome was somehow fixed or predetermined from the beginning, and is stretching the concept of kamma beyond the capacity as taught by the Buddha. There is simply no evidence that has ever been presented for accepting this view or the stretching of the concept of kamma. Therefore, this view, also, is wrong view.

Now, if you fully comprehend the concept of papanca (one example of this may be described as "proliferation of thought or ideation" based upon unfounded "assumptions" — or, for the present example, otherwise characterized as "fears") and how this phenomenon can come about, then you have a rational explanation for the arising (meaning the origin) of the wrong view mentioned in the previous paragraph.

To read anything more into the concept of kamma beyond what the Buddha has already proposed is to misrepresent the Buddha's words.

IanAnd wrote:If you can't handle the truth, you don't need to be reading this... I like to change things up a bit in order to shake things up in the hope of a satori moment for the listener....You may return to your delusion if you so choose.

Geez all of us deluded beings are sure lucky to have you around to point out how really deluded we are...tell me Zen master Ian, is ego not delusion?

The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle. - Ajahn Chah

if you feel what I said is unsubstantiated, please provide dhamma quotes to support your POV, thank you.

Then it would be nice of you if you could avoid the color red, -this is reserved for school teachers, and not that I know of are you my teacher.

Secondly, are you aware of what the Buddha said about that the faculties of a Supreme Buddha? He said they are unconceivable for a normal mortal.

With those faculties the Buddha could see his own past lives and those of others and said we can't, and shouldn't bother to.

If you disagree, could you please refute it with Dhamma quotes?

Thank you.

So, that said, each person that died in a plane crash had it in their kamma, and that it is a death with others also has to do with their individual kamma, but we can't really tell why they die together.Unsubstantiated claim #2.

Please point out here as well with Dhamma quotes why you feel the above is untrue. Only for educational purposes of course, thank you.

Sometimes the most expedient and best way to correct wrong thinking is to directly confront the person with their wrong thought and slap them (figuratively speaking, that is) upside the head and ask them: "What in hell were you thinking when you bought into this wrong view?" Admittedly, this could be viewed as being a Zen method of teaching, but sometimes I like to change things up a bit in order to shake things up in the hope of a satori moment for the listener.

Ok, now we all know that you view us as your disciples, but "what in hell were you thinking when you bought into this wrong view" that we asked you to be our teacher.....?

The speaker further compounds her error in wrong view by making a feeble attempt at providing authority for her previous wrong view: "A Supreme Buddha could view them, though." How would she KNOW that this may be true if she has never met and conversed with a Buddha herself? Now, granted, I am assuming that she has never met with or conversed with a Buddha; however, since there are no proclaimed Buddhas extant in the world today, it is not an irrational assumption. It is, however, a fact that is inescapably true.

Hello, we all haven't talked to a living Buddha, but we have the teachings, yes?

And please, if you feel the need to speak about or to me, you really don't have to turn to the others to point at my alleged mistakes across my head as if I wasn't here, - I am right here and you can address me in everything directly.

I'm off to bed now, perhaps you surprise me with nice quotes tomorrow?

....Warning: Those who cannot confront the truth need not read any further! To paraphrase a famous Jack Nicholson line from the film A Few Good Men: "If you can't handle the truth, you don't need to be reading this."

The preceding unsubstantiated claims (quoted above) are an example of wrong view.

Sometimes the most expedient and best way to correct wrong thinking is to directly confront the person with their wrong thought and slap them (figuratively speaking, that is) upside the head and ask them: "What in hell were you thinking when you bought into this wrong view?" Admittedly, this could be viewed as being a Zen method of teaching, but sometimes I like to change things up a bit in order to shake things up in the hope of a satori moment for the listener.

By asking the person to examine their own thought processes, you are (to use a tennis analogy) putting the ball back into their court and challenging them to make sense of the origin of their thought. Once they are able too correctly discern that origin, they may perhaps see the error of their thinking, and exclaim: "Yes. What was I thinking. Thank you for waking me up!"

There are five ideas that ripen here and now in two ways. What five? Faith, preference, hearsay-learning, arguing upon evidence, and liking through pondering a view. Now something may have faith well placed in it and yet be hollow, empty, and false; and again something may have no faith placed in it and yet be factual, true, and no other than it seems; and so with preference and the rest. If a man has faith, then he guards truth when he says, "My faith is thus," but on that account draws no unreserved conclusion, "Only this is true, the other is wrong."

My understanding is that one is best served by guarding the truth unless he/she is willing to present solid sources that support the interpretation. Not providing those sources (and possibly additional proof of how they are interpreted in various schools) is to chance presenting personal views as the Dhamma. Even with source quotes, I believe presenting information honestly as "my understanding" or "what I've read" preserves the truth of my assertion without accusing another of misrepresenting the Buddha's teachings.

Version two: Warning: If you dislike rude ego-addiction you may not want to read further:

Hi IanAnd, In what alternate universe do they quote crazy Jack Nicholson, who was even wrong in the movie, for any reason on a Buddhist forum? Apparently the most expedient and best way to correct wrong thinking is to directly confront you with your wrong thought and hit you (figuratively speaking, that is) with your own stick: "What in hell were you thinking when you decided to correct everyone on wrong view?" Thanks a lot for marching in and showing me just how terribly wrong I am - wrong.

But seriously, thanks for clearly showing that I can ignore you in the future as not knowledgeable and not a practitioner. Pretty much anything you say can now be ignored from the start because you've shown me that there is no substance beneath it - except for your own high opinion of your own views. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One version is an attempt to reply with how I understand dealing with the truth of Dhamma. I'm not good at it so take it as you choose.

The other version is my concept of how the "I am" conceit gets in the way. The method destroys any message one wanted to deliver.

For what it's worth, I think you'd get your message across more often with less confrontive methods.

Since most participants seem to have left the OP's topic well and truly behind them and are now pursuing different lines of enquiry (and I see little foreseeable chance of us getting back on topic) I'm going to close this topic.

Annapurna has since set up a related topic, so perhaps discussions of the recent variety would be better conducted there...

If Admiral, or anyone else for that matter, has questions to ask on kamma, feel free to create a new topic to do so.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7